Quantifying Long-Term Care Preferences

Author:

Guo Jing123,Konetzka R. Tamara123,Magett Elizabeth123,Dale William123

Affiliation:

1. American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, USA (JG)

2. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA (RTK)

3. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA (WD, EM)

Abstract

Background. Current policies redirecting long-term care (LTC) delivery away from institutional care to home- and community-based services are being made in the absence of crucial evidence on preferences. Studies indicate that the shift to home care is generally not cost-saving; thus, an empirical assessment of effectiveness is needed to evaluate policies incenting home care investment. This study quantifies LTC preferences between different delivery modes. Design. This study extended the time tradeoff method to elicit utilities and LTC preferences associated with the receipt of different modes of LTC services, conditional on health states defined by varying levels of functional and cognitive impairment. Users’ LTC preferences are measured as differential utilities between alternative LTC options for each health state. Results. For the same health state, respondents ( n = 81) significantly preferred home care over institutional care, except for the most impaired health state. The preference for home care over institutional care is quantified as 0.30 quality-of-life (QOL) weight when people need help with only 1 activity of daily living (ADL). The preference for home care depends significantly on levels of disability and was weaker once the need for help became greater. Under the most severe health state of having moderate to severe dementia and needing help with 6 ADLs, the quantified home care preference was only 0.03 QOL weight and was not statistically significant. Limitations. Because the sample is mostly composed of African Americans, the results may not be generalizable to other racial and ethnic groups. Conclusions. People do not always strongly prefer home care over institutional care, as is often assumed. The costs of expanding home- and community-based care should be weighed against these preferences.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 39 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3